Aren't High school seniors 18? What's the prob?
Printable View
Aren't High school seniors 18? What's the prob?
Obama using a dossier to illegally do what? What a load of nonsense. Some oppo research dossier originally funded by a GOP donor was then funded by Hillary but then never used. John McCain somehow got hold of a copy and gave it to the FBI who looked into it. Nothing was made public about it until January this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
"Trump Jr!!!!!!" hold on there.....Fusion GPS, The Podesta Group, phony Trump "dossier" :rolleyes: Obama uses that 'dossier' to illegally surveil the Trump campaign and you have what no issues with that at all? None? Hillary Clinton denied funding the 'dossier' then admitted it saying "Oh it's just oppo research".....your moral relativism is astounding.
No, I am NOT defending a pedo. No I'm not defending the alleged behavior of Roy Moore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Perhaps he was, but again just because he's accused doesn't automatically mean he's guilty.....I'm of the belief he should step aside regardless. But where are you when Democrats are accused of these things? Bill Clinton on the Lolita Express for example? Bill Clinton RAPING Juanita Broaderick? Anything? Anything???? Hillary Clinton viciously ATTACKING her husband's accusers saying "paula Jones is what you get when you drag a $100 bill through a trailer park".....where were you?
I'm fine acknowledging Bill Clinton's sexual history if you acknowledge Trump's. There have been twenty women accuse him of everything from groping to rape. He's on video admitting to routine sexual assault. Let's have both of them investigated and if any charges can be brought then that's fine with me.
The nation's biggest Bible thumper and moral scold turing out to be a paedohile is a gigantic juicy story. Some trial of a Senator for being caught doing stuff which is fairly routine on Capitol Hill isn't likely to get a lot of coverage unless the guy is actually found guilty. Unless it's a live boy or a dead girl trials involving Senators of either party, especially if it's just common influence pedalling, don't get much coverage because they don't get good ratings. Cable news needs scandal and controversy. Moore is the story of the year outside of Trump related stuff, maybe the story of several years.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong"Trump Jr!!!!!!" hold on there.....Fusion GPS, The Podesta Group, phony Trump "dossier" :rolleyes: Obama uses that 'dossier' to illegally surveil the Trump campaign and you have what no issues with that at all? None? Hillary Clinton denied funding the 'dossier' then admitted it saying "Oh it's just oppo research".....your moral relativism is astounding.
No, I am NOT defending a pedo. No I'm not defending the alleged behavior of Roy Moore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Perhaps he was, but again just because he's accused doesn't automatically mean he's guilty.....I'm of the belief he should step aside regardless. But where are you when Democrats are accused of these things? Bill Clinton on the Lolita Express for example? Bill Clinton RAPING Juanita Broaderick? Anything? Anything???? Hillary Clinton viciously ATTACKING her husband's accusers saying "paula Jones is what you get when you drag a $100 bill through a trailer park".....where were you?
Look. Crazy people.
https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/sta...acy-chart.html
https://twitter.com/existentialfish/...16870805344257
Here's Fox News explaining that the latest Clinton scandal is a load of nonsense. Well done Fox News.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...ium-one-debunk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=RnsAZzsdI1U
Yes, crazy....or inept......Buzzfeed and Media Matters :-\Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Analysis: As Liberals Cheer Shepard Smith's Fact Check, is 'Uranium One' a Real Story, or Not?
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...r-not-n2409862
(1) Smith notes that questions about the Uranium One deal were first seriously raised by Peter Schweizer, whom he identifies as a Breitbart editor. Someone's professional connection to that website can be discrediting in many circles, but it's worth pointing out that Schweizer's investigative journalism in Clinton Cash was seen as credible by mainstream media outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post, which forged formal agreements to access and build off of his research.
(2) The New York Times published a major piece about the Uranium One deal in 2015, noting that it helped fulfill Vladimir Putin's goal of amassing more control over the global uranium supply. The key excerpt from that story:
At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One. Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation.
Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well. And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock. At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.
So a big element of this story -- which played out over five years, during which time key players in the transaction poured lots of money into the Clintons' personal and "charitable" bank accounts -- is the non-disclosure of interested donors, as was required. Smith mentions this in his monologue. Also at issue were the "repeatedly broken" pledges meant to mitigate national security concerns about Russia's acquisition of significant American uranium interests. And yes, it's a fact that one of several agencies that ultimately had to sign off on the agreement was the State Department, which was headed at the time by Hillary Clinton. She was not the sole approver of the deal, nor could she have single-handedly stopped it from going through; also, it's unclear how personally involved she was in the process (given her track record, it's reasonable to treat denials from her and her underlings with great skepticism). Regardless, her agency's thumbs-up did help pave the way for the plan to become reality.
(3) The biggest piece of the Clinton puzzle as it relates to Uranium One is Bill Clinton, and the gobs of money he hauled in from interested parties over the years -- in exchange for the extraordinary access and political legitimatization that accompanies the blessing of a former US president. Back to the Times story:
The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side. The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator. Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.
If the Kazakh deal was a major victory, UrAsia did not wait long before resuming the hunt. In 2007, it merged with Uranium One, a South African company with assets in Africa and Australia, in what was described as a $3.5 billion transaction. The new company, which kept the Uranium One name, was controlled by UrAsia investors including Ian Telfer, a Canadian who became chairman. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Giustra, whose personal stake in the deal was estimated at about $45 million, said he sold his stake in 2007. Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States...several months [after the fruitful 2005 trip], Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.....
So yeah such Shep Smith's dick all you want there's still a story there
Also we can note the DRAMATIC difference between what President Obama did for Otto Warmbier and what President Trump did for LiAngelo Ball, Cody Riley and Jalen Hill
Democrat Congressman Accused By 10 Women Of Sexual Harassment Claims He’s The Victim
http://www.dailywire.com/news/23577/...ryan-saavedra#
Winter supposedly alerted Democratic leaders about the incident in 2016 but nothing was done.
I predict there's going to be a lot more political casualties on both sides when it comes right down to it, it's just what's hot right now.
IMPEACH!!!!!!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOtT96BWsAo2oIC.jpg
Senator Al Franken Kissed and Groped Me Without My Consent, And There’s Nothing Funny About It
http://www.kabc.com/2017/11/16/leean...or-al-franken/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xntOpWCIfo
The Curious Case of the Black Male Escort Found Dead Inside a Wealthy Democratic Donor’s Home
https://www.theroot.com/the-curious-...ium=socialflow
:-X
The guy who donated the $145 million to the Clinton Foundation did so three years after he'd sold his stake in the uranium company and a couple of years before Hillary even became Secretary of State. Hillary didn't make the desicion over whether to allow the sale of the company to the Russians and even if she had there were another nine government departments who had to sign off on it. It's another nonstory. It's just with the Trump-Russia thing ongoing and elections coming nexy year the GOP need another Benghazi to rouse the rabble and get them to vote, fundraise and so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongYes, crazy....or inept......Buzzfeed and Media Matters :-\Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Analysis: As Liberals Cheer Shepard Smith's Fact Check, is 'Uranium One' a Real Story, or Not?
I notice you're not taking up my Trump/Clinton sex crimes investigation offer.
Had this been the very first time the Clintons as a duo had been or even seemed to be unethical, then yeah I'd side with you, but with their history you can't just say "Meh, it looks fishy, but there's nothing there". Whitewater, Cattle Futures, Travelgate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingThe guy who donated the $145 million to the Clinton Foundation did so three years after he'd sold his stake in the uranium company and a couple of years before Hillary even became Secretary of State. Hillary didn't make the desicion over whether to allow the sale of the company to the Russians and even if she had there were another nine government departments who had to sign off on it. It's another nonstory. It's just with the Trump-Russia thing ongoing and elections coming nexy year the GOP need another Benghazi to rouse the rabble and get them to vote, fundraise and so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongYes, crazy....or inept......Buzzfeed and Media Matters :-\Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Analysis: As Liberals Cheer Shepard Smith's Fact Check, is 'Uranium One' a Real Story, or Not?
I notice you're not taking up my Trump/Clinton sex crimes investigation offer.
The Trump vs Bill Clinton sex crimes investigation is one sided....Trump said "They let you grab 'em by the pussy" which implies consent even if groping was alleged Bill Clinton is a RAPIST there's no comparison to be had. Wishful thinking on your part and 20 years too late. Not only that Hillary ran cover for Bill, she was head of the and I quote HER words "Bimbo Eruptions" unit of the Bill Clinton campaign.
Gotta admit the what goes around comes around was hilarious on that ;D. Rubio with the jokes. So perfect I almost thought it was staged :-X.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
Great to see both acting like adults this morning. Franken admits fully and calls for investigation ???. Releases sincere apology and owns action. Tweeden fully accepts on air and says its heartfelt and isn't calling for his job.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
the rampant pace has surely kicked up. The lines are blurred and have heard some dipshit in Alabama drop Franken-boob honker gate in relation to child molestation ffs.
I think Senator Whitehouse looks like the biggest idiot I have ever seen in my life
I have seen bigger on here. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
Barring mirrors, so have IQuote:
Originally Posted by MasterI have seen bigger on here. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
I don't agree with trophy hunting, I hunt to eat and also to conserve wildlife. Now if you're hunting animals which are a threat to humans or livestock, that's acceptable to take a trophy especially if you're not going to eat the predator (you don't eat many predators when you think about it....bear and bobcat are the only mammalian predators I've had, alligator and rattlesnake which of course are reptilian predators). Invasive species are also animals I do not mind if they are hunted out as they harm local species.
When it comes to lions, there are some lions which need to be hunted they are considered "vulnerable" and IF proper conservation style hunting is implemented the lion population could actually see an uptick in their numbers ditto with elephants and rhinos. The big problem is poaching which of course if we're wide open to allowing trophies back we might see a rise in that conduct as well which would be very bad. It's going to and always was going to come down to people in those nations and other wildlife focused people to protect those species from POACHING not hunting.
CNN can go fuck themselves Ivanka said what she said about CHILD MOLESTERS, to ask her to answer for her father at all is grotesque. When did they opine on Chelsea Clinton answering for Bill? Hmmm? When did that happen? FUCKING NEVER that's when.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpicoliGreat to see both acting like adults this morning. Franken admits fully and calls for investigation ???. Releases sincere apology and owns action. Tweeden fully accepts on air and says its heartfelt and isn't calling for his job.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
the rampant pace has surely kicked up. The lines are blurred and have heard some dipshit in Alabama drop Franken-boob honker gate in relation to child molestation ffs.
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump
The Al Frankenstien picture is really bad, speaks a thousand words. Where do his hands go in pictures 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 while she sleeps? .....
...Mr. Trump lifted the armrest and began to touch her. According to Ms. Leeds, Mr. Trump grabbed her breasts and tried to put his hand up her skirt. 'He was like an octopus,' she said. 'His hands were everywhere.'
Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately
New York Times
OCT. 12, 2016
That's quite an impressive tax bill the GOP are trying to pass. Keeps the deductions for private jets but ends them for teachers buying classroom supplies. Personal tax cuts end after eight years but business/corporate tax cuts are permanent. Half of all middle class families get a tax increase. Fifteen million people lose healthcare. Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Creates a lower level of corporate taxation on foreign income which will encourage corporations to offshore even more. Ends the mortgage deduction which could cause another financial disaster. It's the most unpopular piece of legislation ever polled apart from the failed Trumpcare bill.
The GOP have so far failed to pass any major legislation. Their first attempt was the most unpopular bill in history, a trillion dollar capital gains tax cut disguised as a healthcare bill that would have taken health insurance away from 25 million people. Their second attempt is the tax bill.
Oh, and they're putting another bank lobbyist in charge of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That's well over 50% of the economy being governed and overseen by lobbyists for those sectors of the economy. Ladies and gentlemen, your Republican party.
All those things were investigated for over eight years. Whitewater was a failed nickel and dime land deal in the seventies that the Clintons lost money on. The GOP decided to investigate it in the nineties. That led to all the other ridiculous investigations. They were still investigating Clinton a year after he left office. In nearly nine years they only managed to file one blowjob-related charge. That's it.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongHad this been the very first time the Clintons as a duo had been or even seemed to be unethical, then yeah I'd side with you, but with their history you can't just say "Meh, it looks fishy, but there's nothing there". Whitewater, Cattle Futures, Travelgate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingThe guy who donated the $145 million to the Clinton Foundation did so three years after he'd sold his stake in the uranium company and a couple of years before Hillary even became Secretary of State. Hillary didn't make the desicion over whether to allow the sale of the company to the Russians and even if she had there were another nine government departments who had to sign off on it. It's another nonstory. It's just with the Trump-Russia thing ongoing and elections coming nexy year the GOP need another Benghazi to rouse the rabble and get them to vote, fundraise and so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongYes, crazy....or inept......Buzzfeed and Media Matters :-\Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Analysis: As Liberals Cheer Shepard Smith's Fact Check, is 'Uranium One' a Real Story, or Not?
I notice you're not taking up my Trump/Clinton sex crimes investigation offer.
The Trump vs Bill Clinton sex crimes investigation is one sided....Trump said "They let you grab 'em by the pussy" which implies consent even if groping was alleged Bill Clinton is a RAPIST there's no comparison to be had. Wishful thinking on your part and 20 years too late. Not only that Hillary ran cover for Bill, she was head of the and I quote HER words "Bimbo Eruptions" unit of the Bill Clinton campaign.
Both Bill Clinton and Trump have been accused of rape, Trump by multiple women. That doesn't make them RAPISTS. I'm happy for all the people accusing both Clinton and Trump to have their allegations investigated.
Glad to see Trump finally designate North Korea as a sponsor of terrorism. Hopefully they assassinate that Kim idiot soon.
National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster mocked President Trump’s intelligence at a private dinner with a powerful tech CEO, according to five sources with knowledge of the conversation.
Over a July dinner with Oracle CEO Safra Catz — who has been mentioned as a candidate for several potential administration jobs — McMaster bluntly trashed his boss, said the sources, four of whom told BuzzFeed News they heard about the exchange directly from Catz. The top national security official dismissed the president variously as an “idiot” and a “dope” with the intelligence of a “kindergartner,” the sources said.
A sixth source who was not familiar with the details of the dinner told BuzzFeed News that McMaster had made similarly derogatory comments about Trump’s intelligence to him in private, including that the president lacked the necessary brainpower to understand the matters before the National Security Council.
[...]
McMaster’s allegedly dismissive comments are the latest suggestion that at least some of Trump’s senior-most aides see their jobs as containing a president who isn’t up to the task. In October, NBC News and other outlets reported that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called the president a “moron” in a July meeting at the Pentagon. Also in October, Republican Sen. Bob Corker told the New York Times that a group of senior administration officials have banded together to try to keep Trump under control.
[...]
But these new details reveal that the subject matter of McMaster’s dinner with Catz, which sources tell BuzzFeed News took place on July 18 at the Washington, DC, restaurant Tosca, ranged far from geopolitics. Indeed, three of the sources said that McMaster disparaged multiple members of the administration to Catz, including Tillerson, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, and President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner. Of Kushner, one source told BuzzFeed News, McMaster said he had no business being in the White House and should not be involved in national security issues.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephberns...J9J#.nt5rQ5MzM
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-in-house-bill
Also, too, this is behind a paywall so I'll post it all. It's worth reading, from the pinkoes at the Financial Times:
Please use the sharing tools found via the email icon at the top of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
https://www.ft.com/content/e494f47e-...b-291a884dd8c6
How does a political party dedicated to the material interests of the top 0.1 per cent of the income distribution win and hold power in a universal suffrage democracy? That is the challenge confronting the Republican party. The answer it has found is “pluto-populism”. This is a politically successful, but dangerous, strategy. It has brought Donald Trump to the presidency. His failure might bring someone more dangerous, more determined, to power. This matters to the US and, given its power, to the wider world. The tax bills going through Congress demonstrate the party’s primary objectives. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in the House version of the bill, about 45 per cent of the tax reductions in 2027 would go to households with incomes above $500,000 (fewer than 1 per cent of filers) and 38 per cent to households with incomes over $1m (about 0.3 per cent of filers). In the more cautious Senate version, households with incomes below $75,000 would be worse off. This simply is reform for plutocrats. (See charts.) That is far from all. The bill might also increase the cumulative fiscal deficit by about $1.5tn over the coming decade. Yet, according to the independent and respected Congressional Budget Office, the US fiscal position is already on a deteriorating path, with spending forecast to rise from 21 per cent of gross domestic product in 2017 to 25 per cent in 2028-37. The planned tax cuts would worsen the pressure to cut spending. The outcome desired by the Republicans is to slash spending on nearly all of the non-defence discretionary spending of the federal government, plus its spending on health and social security. In all, then, this is a determined effort to shift resources from the bottom, middle and even upper middle of the US income distribution towards the very top, combined with big increases in economic insecurity for the great majority. How, one must ask, has a party with such objectives successfully gained power? In all, we can see three mutually supportive answers to this question. The first approach is to find intellectuals who argue that everybody will benefit from policies ostensibly benefiting so few. Supply-side economics, with its narrow focus on tax cuts, has been the main theory employed, because it directly justifies tax cuts for the very wealthy. But it is untrue that the tax cuts of the Reagan era unleashed an upsurge in trend US economic growth. Since the economy is now nearing full employment, the benefits of fiscal stimulus would be especially small. Supporters of the proposed cuts argue that the reductions in corporation tax will lead to a big rise in business investment. Here are two powerful pieces of contrary evidence: the share of post-tax profits in US GDP has already nearly doubled since the early 2000s, with no beneficial effect on the rate of investment; and the UK has progressively slashed its corporate tax rate from 30 to 19 per cent since 2008 with no identifiable benefit for investment. Lowering the corporate tax rate is merely a windfall for shareholders. If one wanted to raise investment, one would make it fully deductible from tax. The proposed repeal of the estate tax, which is of benefit only to the heirs of the largest 0.2 per cent of estates in the country, really gives the supply-side game away. Who wants to argue that people live longer if death is less taxed? The second approach is to abuse the law. One way has been to give wealth the overriding role in politics it holds today. Another is to suppress the votes of people likely to vote against plutocratic interests, or even disenfranchise them. The third approach is to foment cultural and ethnic splits. This is sometimes described as the “Southern strategy”, which shifted the old South from the Democrats to the Republicans, after the former enacted civil rights. Yet this is too limited a view of the strategy. More interesting is the echo of the antebellum South itself. The pre-civil war South was extremely unequal, not just in the population as a whole, which included the slaves, but even among free whites. A standard measure of inequality jumped by 70 per cent among whites between 1774 and 1860. As the academics Peter Lindert and Jeffrey Williamson note, “Any historian looking for the rise of a poor white underclass in the Old South will find it in this evidence.” The 1860 census also shows that the median wealth of the richest 1 per cent of Southerners was more than three times that of the richest 1 per cent of Northerners. Yet the South was also far less dynamic. The South was a plutocracy. In the civil war, whose stated aim was defence of slavery, close to 300,000 Confederate soldiers died. A majority of these men had no slaves. Yet their racial and cultural fears justified the sacrifice. Ultimately, this mobilisation brought death or defeat upon them all. Nothing better reveals the political potency of tribalism. A not dissimilar threat arises for today’s plutocrats. The economics and politics of pluto-populism have stoked cultural, ethnic and nationalist anger in the party’s base. Skilful demagogues are able to exploit this anger for their own purposes. At least Mr Trump remains a servant of the plutocracy. But his former adviser, Steve Bannon, seeks someone to promote rightwing populism shorn of its more blatantly plutocratic elements. The plutocrats are riding on a hungry tiger. The pluto-populism of the Republican elite brought forth Mr Trump. This is not going to be forgotten. If the current tax bills get through, the tensions within the US are almost certain to get worse. Latin American inequality leads to Latin American politics. The US the world once knew is drowning in a tide of unconscionable and apparently unlimited greed. We are all now doomed to live with the unhappy consequences.
https://www.ft.com/content/e494f47e-...b-291a884dd8c6
OK, there are two links in the previous post. The Bloomberg one and the FT one. The FT are fucking with people who cut and paste their articles elsewhere so it's all in one block and problematical, but it's right on the money.
This tax cut bill is currently polling as the second most unpopular piece of legislation in history. And that's before voters really find out what's in it.
And as soon as it passes, guess what? After adding trillions of dollars to the deficit Republicans will suddenly become deficit hawks and there'll be attempts to make massive cuts to Medicare and Social Security to make up for the losses caused by this tax cut. They're starting already:
Tax reform is only one piece of the overall puzzle needed to revitalize the American economy, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) told a group of Washington, D.C., lobbyists and policy analysts this morning at a Politico Playbook Interview sponsored by the Financial Services Roundtable. The other part? Reduce the deficit and offset the cost of the reform, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates at $1.3 trillion.
“I analyze this very differently than most,” Rubio told the crowd. “Many argue that you can’t cut taxes because it will drive up the deficit. But we have to do two things. We have to generate economic growth which generates revenue, while reducing spending. That will mean instituting structural changes to Social Security and Medicare for the future,” the senator said.
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/rubio--o...its-35928.html
Candidate Trump raged at the rigged economy and promised to unrig it and make everybody better off. Instead he's rigged it even further in the favour of corporations and the wealthy. Surely at some point the people who voted for him are going to realise they've been conned?
http://realorsatire.com/newsthump-com/
I'll just drop this off here
Trump is a true imbecile and the sooner he becomes ex president the better.
SSI spent one trillion dollars for the first time last year. It is unmanageable. I'm not really counting on SSI payments if I make it that long. SSI and welfare have been the political third rail for so long the only way to save it is a big percentage drop in payments and raising the age again. You can take numbers out of this bill to support either cause for or against. I'm not against cutting the corporate tax but it needs to translate to the people which it didn't do while these companies reaped in record profits the last almost 9 years, I'm not convinced it will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
I beleive there is a sunset clause on the individual cut if it doesn't translate to increased ecomic blah blah but no sunset on the corporations. Should be the other way around.
Kirk, every line on the tax code has a special interest group supporting it. Do you think tax lawyers don't fight simplification. If we can get money out of government it would function better. This bill may be the best we can get. If trump only adds a few trillion to the deficit I'll consider that a cut at this point. It's getting to the point every president spends more than all the other presidents in history. It's frickin crazy. I'll see if I can dig up a graph
Shut upQuote:
Originally Posted by Master
Thought you were going for the one where convicted felon and ex Grand wizard David Duke praises him for a fake video and thanks god for him. "That's why we love him" :-X. Sleep well with that.
Kirk I do think getting rid of the individual mandate is good. Also remember the bill as it stands is not the bill that will be, it needs to go to commite first. I'll tell you if they don't do it the market will tank out. I don't know how much congress takes that into consideration
What a clueless dopey twat. Carry on bigging up your ignorant fuckwit Prez if it makes you happy, but don't forget Britain First are the pricks who posted pictures of Ice Cube claiming he was a Syrian immigrant turned terrorist ffs. The same group that would rip up the Good Friday agreement in Ireland, would claim to be raising money for Veterans and sick and maltreated animals why pocketing the money themselves. Meanwhile the head if the KKK is falling over himself to congratulate YOUR man.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus